About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Proxy Protection LLC / Mvo Yannick

Case No. D2021-2995

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Virgin Enterprises Limited, United Kingdom, represented by A.A. Thornton & Co., United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Proxy Protection LLC, United States of America (“United States”) / Mvo Yannick, Cameroon.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <virginatlanticexpressmail.com> is registered with DreamHost, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 10, 2021. On September 13, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 14, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 15, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on September 17, 2021.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 22, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 12, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 13, 2021.

The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on October 18, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a member of a group of companies collectively known as “the Virgin Group”, originally established in 1970. There are currently over 60 VIRGIN branded businesses that span a diverse range of sectors with over 53 million customers worldwide and over 69,000 employees in 35 countries. In 1984, the Complainant launched its first passenger and cargo airlines under the brand VIRGIN ATLANTIC.

The Complainant owns trademark registrations in various jurisdictions, including the European Union trademark VIRGIN (Reg. No. 1798560, registered on June 5, 2002), the United States trademark VIRGIN ATLANTIC (Reg. No. 2808270, registered on January 27, 2004) and the United Kingdom trademark VIRGIN ATLANTIC (Reg. No. 1287263, registered on April 3, 1992).

The Complainant further holds the domain name <virgin.com> under which the official website of the Complainant is available. The Complainant holds several other domain names incorporating the VIRGIN and VIRGIN ATLANTIC trademarks, including the domain name <virginatlantic.com>. The Complainant advertises and sells its services through its <virgin.com> and <virginatlantic.com> domain names.

The disputed domain name was registered on July 29, 2021 and resolved to a website which purportedly offered cargo and freight services. A “contact us” page asked for personal information of the user. An email server was configured under the disputed domain name. In the meantime, the website has been parked.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant alleges that it has satisfied all elements of the Policy, paragraph 4.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

On the basis of the facts and evidence introduced by the Complainant, and with regard to paragraphs 4(a),(b) and (c) of the Policy, the Panel concludes as follows:

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate its registered rights in the VIRGIN and VIRGIN ATLANTIC trademarks.

The VIRGIN and VIRGIN ATLANTIC trademarks are wholly reproduced in the disputed domain name.

A domain name is “identical or confusingly similar” to a trademark for the purposes of the Policy when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of other terms in the domain name (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662). As stated in WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8, “[w]here the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. The nature of such additional term(s) may however bear on assessment of the second and third elements”. Hence, the Panel holds that the addition of the term “expressmail” to the Complainant’s VIRGIN and VIRGIN ATLANTIC trademarks does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks.

The Complainant has thus fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

There are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant nor making any bona fide use of the disputed domain name.

The Respondent used the disputed domain name to purportedly promote cargo and freight services. The Complainant has credibly alleged that the Respondent used the disputed domain name for generating revenue by offering fake cargo and freight services while taking advantage of the Complainant’s trademark notoriety. No other reason for the Respondent’s conduct is plausible and the Respondent has failed to advance any good faith reasoning on his behalf. This cannot be considered as a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial use.

Furthermore, the composition of the disputed domain name, wholly incorporating the Complainant’s VIRGIN and VIRGIN ATLANTIC trademarks and the term “expressmail” (which is related to the Complainant’s activities) cannot constitute fair use in these circumstances as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

The Panel finds that the Complainant, having made out a prima facie case which remains unrebutted by the Respondent, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Under the circumstances of this case, including the composition of the disputed domain name and reputation of the Complainant’s trademarks, it can be inferred that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademarks when registering the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that the reproduction of the Complainant’s trademarks along with the term “expressmail” creates a likelihood of confusion between the Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name, considering that the added term “expressmail” is related to the Complainant’s activities.

The evidence and allegations submitted by the Complainant support a finding that the Respondent was engaged in an attempt to pass himself off as the Complainant by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his website for his own commercial benefit. The Respondent therefore used the disputed domain name in bad faith (see Claudie Pierlot v. Yinglong Ma, WIPO Case No. D2018-2466). The fact that the website at the disputed domain name has been parked in the meantime does not prevent a finding of bad faith.

Accordingly, the Complainant has also fulfilled paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <virginatlanticexpressmail.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Date: October 29, 2021

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/